| Author |
 Topic |
|
|
Frederick Douglass
9 Posts |
 Posted - 2006 May 05 : 17:55:59
|
| The use of the word “undesirable” is very disturbing. That term has historically been used to refer to Jews, blacks, and gays that people do not want in their community. The only reason St. John’s would kick someone out without giving a reason is if it would be too embarrassing to admit the real reason. |
|
|
nobody
5 Posts |
Posted - 2006 May 05 : 18:07:35
|
If you're suggesting that the College is attempting to spare itself embarrassment, I believe you're mistaken. Privacy laws prohibit the administration of the College from publicly discussing details of student disciplinary actions. It is not the College, but the student, whose potential embarassment is of concern here.
This leads to a bad situation where rumors spread that Johnnie Doe was unjustly kicked out for assaulting a tutor. How damaging would it be to Johnnie's reputation if the College were allowed to confirm that the accusations are not unjust, that, in fact, Johnnie downed 12 hits of acid and chased Miss Brann across the campus with a battleaxe? Doesn't the College's legally imposed silence protect Mr. Doe's reputation?
This forum pretends that it is about defending people. If the owners really cared about students and staff they believe have been wronged, they would stop poking into other people's dirty laundry. It seems to me that what's really behind this forum is a prurient desire to know, "Did he really do it?" In response to this, I can only say, "It's not really any of our business."
quote:
Originally posted by Frederick Douglass
The only reason St. John?s would kick someone out without giving a reason is if it would be too embarrassing to admit the real reason.
|
Edited by - nobody on 2006 May 05 18:28:11 |
 |
|
|
Frederick Douglass
9 Posts |
Posted - 2006 May 05 : 18:19:40
|
| Privacy laws don't prohibit the college from telling the student whom they kick out the reason why they kicked that student out. It's inappropriate and rude for the college to do so, especially when the college keeps the student's money. The reason is not embarrassing for the student because he doesn't have to tell anyone. It's embarrassing for the school to admit that they kicked someone out not for academic or disciplinary reasons but for some other, unstated reason such as race, political beliefs, or personal dislike. |
|
|
|
nobody
5 Posts |
Posted - 2006 May 05 : 18:38:01
|
Do you know of any cases where this has been done?
quote:
Originally posted by Frederick Douglass
Privacy laws don't prohibit the college from telling the student whom they kick out the reason why they kicked that student out.
|
|
|
|
moderator
38 Posts |
Posted - 2006 May 11 : 13:43:36
|
“Nobody” substantially edited his or her first post in this topic after Frederick Douglass had already responded. Please avoid editing your post beyond spelling, grammar, or minor style corrections after someone has already responded to your post. This creates the mistaken impression that someone is responding to a different message than the one actually commented on.
"Nobody"'s original post on May 5, 2006 at 6:07 pm read,
"If you're suggesting that the College is attempting to spare itself embarrassment, I believe you're mistaken. Privacy laws prohibit the administration of the College from publicly discussing details of student disciplinary actions.
"If you're suggesting that the College is attempting to spare the student embarrassment, you are on the right track. See above."
Both versions of "nobody"'s post contained the identical quotation from Frederick Douglass's post, "The only reason St. John's would kick someone out without giving a reason is if it would be too embarrassing to admit the real reason." |
|
|
|
nobody
5 Posts |
Posted - 2006 May 11 : 14:34:24
|
For what it's worth, I was editing my original post while Frederick Douglass was replying, not after.
[quote]Originally posted by moderator
?Nobody? substantially edited his or her first post in this topic after Frederick Douglass had already responded. |
|
|
|
The Great Pumpkin
8 Posts |
Posted - 2006 July 28 : 16:33:30
|
Sometimes unethical college administrators in order to hide illegal or immoral reasons for students’ expulsions put clauses in their college’s student handbook allowing the college to dismiss a student without giving a specific reason. When students poring over the student handbook discover a rule allowing for the dismissal of undesirable students, they generally don’t take much notice of it, believing that it’s not possible that they will be kicked out of school unless they do something wrong. But when the rule is enforced, students can find themselves compelled to leave suddenly. Few people on campus know the real reason for a student’s disappearance, and rumors spread quickly. When questioned, the administration response is always the same; the administration says that the rule is only used rarely and that the college can’t discuss the case for privacy reasons even when the students punished by the policy themselves waive their right to privacy. Colleges protect themselves from lawsuits by saying that students agreed to all parts of the student handbook when they chose to enroll.
Frederick Douglass, suspicious of the vagueness of the word “undesirable”, suggests that such a clause can be used to mask when race, religion, or sexual preference is the reason for a student’s dismissal. In fact, there are many situations in which a college administration would want to expel students without giving a reason. A college may dismiss a disabled student if the administration determines that the cost and effort of accommodating the student’s needs are more than the administration wants to bear. Colleges are often eager to get rid of students suffering from depression as they want to distance themselves from any student whom they fear may be a suicide risk. Victims of violent crime on campus, especially when perpetrated by employees of the college, can be expelled in order to contain information that would reflect badly on the institution. Students who criticize administration policies or actions or who advocate political positions that the administration opposes can also be singled out for expulsion. The policy of dismissal without cause can be used against girls who become pregnant or are viewed as promiscuous. It can be used against students who have had affairs with members of the faculty in order to protect the faculty members’ reputations. A policy of dismissal without cause can be enforced in a myriad of other ways. What ties these examples together is that they all involve students being expelled who have committed no disciplinary violation that would justify such an action. Colleges have this rule in order to avoid putting in writing a reason for dismissal that would make them look bad if publicized. We don’t know how often St. John’s uses this policy, against whom St. John’s has enforced this policy in the past, or what kinds of people the college intends to use it against in the future. What we do know is that the policy exists, and such a policy, fundamentally rooted in injustice, ought to be rescinded.
“Nobody”, like many college administrators, considers it wrong to raise specific examples of administrative misconduct in order to criticize the administration because doing so would violate students’ privacy. But “nobody”’s question, “Do you know of any cases where this has been done?” implies that criticism of a policy has no validity unless a specific example of wrongdoing is used to support the argument. This policy, essentially removing students’ rights for a more public challenge before the student review board, is inherently secretive, and therefore examples of the policy’s enforcement are difficult to come by. I know of only one case in which a student at St. John’s was dismissed without being given a reason. There may be other instances that I do not know about. But whether this policy is enforced often or rarely, it is still wrong. Students spend a lot of time and money on their education, and they deserve the basic assurance that they won’t be dismissed without a stated reason and the right to challenge an accusation made against them.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Undesirable
